Order Complaint No. 202 0f 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.202 OF 2023
6th November, 2023
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Sri Ch. V Govardhan Charry

…Complainant
Versus

Sri Bhuvankar Sridhar
Sri Oruganti Venkat Reddy
Sri Mallekedi Vamshi
Sri Mallekedi Shivaji

…Respondent

The present matter, filed by the Complainant, herein came up for
hearing on 04th October 2023 and on 02nd November 2023 before this
Authority, in the presence of the Complainant in person. No representation
was made on behalf of the Respondents. Upon due consideration of the
arguments presented by the Complainant, this Authority issues the following
ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been lodged under Section 31 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “RERD Act”), in conjunction with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Rules”). The Complainant seeks directives from this Authority to
take actions against the Respondents.

3.

The Complainant submits that he, acquired a plot bearing no. 284,
situated in survey number 356/vu, measuring 150 square yards in
Jadcherla. This acquisition was effectuated through a registered sale deed,
numbered 2129/2003.

4.

Subsequent to the acquisition of the said plot, the Complainant
demarcated and secured his property by installing boundary markers.
1 of 3

5.

On February 21, 2023, during an inspection of his land, the
Complainant discovered that the fencing delineating the boundaries of his
plot had been removed by the Respondents. Furthermore, it was observed
that the Respondents had encroached upon the plot.
The Respondents have purportedly been endeavoring to obtain DTCP
(Directorate of Town and Country Planning) layout permission for the
disputed area. In response, the Complainant initiated legal proceedings in
the Hon’ble Civil Court, identified as OS.no. 359/2022, concerning this
matter. As of the present, the case is pending before the said court.

6.

It is observed by this Authority, operating under the purview of the
RERD Act, the present complaint lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
disputes related to land encroachment. Nonetheless, the Authority
acknowledges that the Complainant should address his concerns regarding
his rights with the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP
Telangana). The Complainant has informed the Bench that the same
dispute has already been brought before the Civil court (OS No. 359/2022)
and that he has obtained injunction orders preventing the Respondents
from occupying the plot. However, the matter is still pending before the
civil court. This Authority is of the view that its jurisdiction extends solely
to safeguard the interests of the Project and the interests of the allottees.
Hence, the present complaint is, prima facie, not maintainable before this
Authority, as the Complainant does not qualify as either an allottee or a
promoter/landowner but rather as a concerned neighbor with respect to
the issue of land encroachment.

7.

During the hearings held on 04th October 2023 and 02nd November
2023, the Complainant was unable to establish that a dispute involving
land encroachment falls within the purview of this Authority. The
Authority's jurisdiction is confined to addressing disputes between
promoters and allottees. In instances of such disputes, Complainants are
advised to seek redress through the Civil Court or other competent
sanctioned authorities. It is acknowledged that the disputed matter is
already under consideration by the Civil Court between the present
Complainant and the Respondents.
2 of 3

8.

The present Complaint does not fulfill the criteria for classification as
an "aggrieved person" as prescribed by the provisions of the 2016 Act. This
determination is based on the fact that the Complainant does not fall
within any of the specified categories outlined in the Act, which encompass
being an allottee, an association of allottees, or a voluntary consumer
association. In this instance, the Complainant has been unable to provide
the Authority with any supporting evidence or an authorization letter
demonstrating their qualification as an aggrieved person in accordance
with the definition articulated in Section 31 of the RERD Act. Section 31 is
reproduced herein for reference:
31. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of
the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder
against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be.
Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the
association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered
under any law for the time being in force.

9.

In light of the aforementioned perspective, the Authority concludes that
the present complaint is not maintainable, and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA
3 of 3